carlatpsychiatry.blogspot.com
Reading that psychology today article made me throw up in my mouth a little. Despite that I can live with vehemently disagreeing with him on some topics (like scope of practice) and absolutely loving the podcast and work they do. Definitely a good clinical recommendation.I hate saying it and I don't know if it's still even being published but the Carlat Report IMHO is very clinically relevant. Reason why is I've seen Carlat state some things that I found utter nonsense, such as wanting psychologists to prescribe psychotropic meds, not a limited set, but all of them without physician supervision. This happened over 10 years ago and he responded on the forum. Now he didn't exactly say what I wrote, but he strongly endorsed the Oregon law where exactly what I wrote was pushed, despite admitting to not having reviewed the law himself.
Then when confronted about it he admitted he didn't review the law, but then connected A to B to G without plotting C, D, E, or F citing that if psychologists could prescribe, even under questionable circumstances, it would force psychiatrists to provide better psychotherapy, without having any data to back it up, and that this hasn't been demonstrated in any of the states where psychologist prescribing was allowed. As written in an interview with Psychology Today.
Psychologists and Prescription Privileges: A Conversation (Part One)
A psychiatrist discusses psychologist prescription privileges with his patient.www.psychologytoday.com
He also cited a military study to back his argument despite that this same article had physician supervision of psychologists and even stated it was not enough data to safely say psychologists could prescribe in the community.
Psychologists Prescribing: The Best Thing That Can Happen to Psychiatry
First, I apologize to readers of my blog for the paucity of posts lately. The reason has nothing to do with my health (I had a mitral valve...
While one could argue that Psychology Today may have taken him out-of-context, he is an editor in that same publication.
I usually actually agree with Carlat, but the above was such a glaring problem IMHO. He goes on various news outlets pushing his opinion and admitted he didn't even review the law himself.
Getting back to the journal, it has good clinically-heavy relevant articles, and despite my complaints every single issue I've read was well written. Also I very much like journals that offer opinions, even differing ones (reason why I was upset with Carlat wasn't that we disagreed but that he endorsed a law without reviewing the law itself).
Just as a caveat, the journal of clinical psychiatry seems to be industry funded so will have more positive results for RCTs.
It's not industry funded (not more than any other journal that has drug ads anyway). They wouldn't be able to offer CMEs if that were the case. And the paper linked to does not support that assertion -it is about author conflicts, not journal conflicts.
Swamp is deepI hate saying it and I don't know if it's still even being published but the Carlat Report IMHO is very clinically relevant. Reason why is I've seen Carlat state some things that I found utter nonsense, such as wanting psychologists to prescribe psychotropic meds, not a limited set, but all of them without physician supervision. This happened over 10 years ago and he responded on the forum. Now he didn't exactly say what I wrote, but he strongly endorsed the Oregon law where exactly what I wrote was pushed, despite admitting to not having reviewed the law himself.
Then when confronted about it he admitted he didn't review the law, but then connected A to B to G without plotting C, D, E, or F citing that if psychologists could prescribe, even under questionable circumstances, it would force psychiatrists to provide better psychotherapy, without having any data to back it up, and that this hasn't been demonstrated in any of the states where psychologist prescribing was allowed. As written in an interview with Psychology Today.
Psychologists and Prescription Privileges: A Conversation (Part One)
A psychiatrist discusses psychologist prescription privileges with his patient.
He also cited a military study to back his argument despite that this same article had physician supervision of psychologists and even stated it was not enough data to safely say psychologists could prescribe in the community.
Psychologists Prescribing: The Best Thing That Can Happen to Psychiatry
First, I apologize to readers of my blog for the paucity of posts lately. The reason has nothing to do with my health (I had a mitral valve...
While one could argue that Psychology Today may have taken him out-of-context, he is an editor in that same publication.
I usually actually agree with Carlat, but the above was such a glaring problem IMHO. He goes on various news outlets pushing his opinion and admitted he didn't even review the law himself.
Getting back to the journal, it has good clinically-heavy relevant articles, and despite my complaints every single issue I've read was well written. Also I very much like journals that offer opinions, even differing ones (reason why I was upset with Carlat wasn't that we disagreed but that he endorsed a law without reviewing the law itself).
Most of the authors have conflicts of interest with industry funding is what I meant.
